I was perusing the hockey blogosphere (fuck, did I just use that fucking word?) and found myself over at "Gripping the Stick Too Tight" and came across a magnificent post on the current debate revolving around fighting and it's place in the game of hockey. Make sure you click on the "beat to death with my own shoe" link. Fucking glorious.
Anyways, I felt the need to touch on Nuug's link to an article in The Globe and Mail. The article is about a gay rights group and their objection to the use of the term "pansification".
I am all for the fags getting married, being able to vote, being able to walk down the street without getting spat on and the fact that they are humans that should not be worried about getting their heads kicked in every time they leave the house. This is not nazi Germany or Missippi in the 50's last time I checked (although there are probably still places in the world where that actually is the case, I just haven't checked those places. If they do exist, and you are reading this, I have some advice for you: leave.).
What I am NOT for is gay rights groups perpetuating stereotypes. The first definition I found referred to pansy (other than the flower) being first and foremost a term describing a man or boy as effiminate. The last thing we want is for hockey to be effimante, and personally the last thing I want taken out of the game is fighting. Add shoot-outs, get rid of icing, implement mandatory visors, make werid lines where the goalies aren't allowed to touch the puck, make the nets bigger or smaller or festoon them with pink streamers. Ok, maybe not the last thing. Point is, some if this has happened and some is probably forthcoming, but none of this shit takes away from me wanting to watch a hockey game.
By objecting to the term pansification this group is:
1) Solidifying a term that meant effiminate becoming a derogatory term for gay men.
2) Probably getting Mike Milbury into wikipedia and maybe even a dictionary (let's not forget Stephen Colbert and "truthiness") for coining a stupid term.
3) Making my fucking brain bleed on a hungover sunday.
4) Being hyper-gay.
There are some prety tough gay dudes in the world. There are some pretty pansy-ass straight dudes in the world too. Fuck Crosby looks like he's wearing lipstick, take a look at Taylor Pyatt's eyelashes. Neither are effiminate, but...
Fuck I don't even know where I was going with this...
Bottom line:
THE TERM WAS NOT FAGGIFICATION. LET. IT. GO.
2 comments:
Bravo. Beautiful post. I like it when you get all politicancerous on the intenet. By the way, Politicancerous is my hope for a Wikipedia entry. I'm not sure what it means, but I'm sure some vocal minority out there will hate it.
Classy. Very classy. Thanks for the shout out, glad you enjoyed it. I tried to find video on this bit of Doug Stanhope's 'No Refunds' stand up routine, but couldn't find it. You should check it out, its lovely.
"Faggots. I try to qualify, I use faggot too liberally, but I use it as a word of weakness. I attach no sexuality to the word, and if you're gay, and you're in here, and you're offended. I'll be at the door on the way out, and I'll suck your dick, just to show that I meant no offense. I'm not gonna get wicked into it, and yank on your balls, like you're all coked up and that's the only way you can come." - Doug Stanhope
Post a Comment